BUT, what I didn't think about, and probably Rich did not either, was some of the really personal stuff that some would have wanted copied that meant a great deal to them

True enough. And it's unfortunate that the needs of the community differed with what Rich needed. But if Rich chose what was best for his own peace of mind (and this is still all speculation, obviously) as opposed to what was best for everyone else, I can't really blame the guy for choosing to do what was best for Rich.

Oh, and I will personally put a contract out on the first Trekkie to start blabbing about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. :twisted:

I agreed with what people said here...but just shutting it down with no warning really stinks, period. I really liked the environment and community on GG. But the lack of updates on the other pages, and the general malaise of the site just did it in, IMHO.

I've been toying with resurrecting the site (as gonegold.net or pcgonegold.com) and retooling it, with frequent game updates of games going Gold, frequent column updates (by both myself and other game industry people I know), a full forum, and (most importantly) more open and consistent communication with members, and some other stuff (to differentiate it from the gonegold.com site). Not sure if it would be worth doing or not, but i'd love to maybe try at some point.

Sounds cool but would probably be better without the words "Gone" or "Gold" in it. Sad as it is, I think the legacy of GG is a dead Web site with a great forum. That's probably not a stigma you'd want to have for a brand new site.

A new gonegold would be a good idea to me but boy would you catch a lot of flack.

As far as the gist of this thread, I don't see why a simple page could have been put up that said Gone Gold Down for the foreseeable future. I was checking the site about 5 or 6 times a day. I had no idea the site was really down.

Don't get me wrong Rich could have done anything he wanted to do with his site but a simple courtesy would have been appreciated. Oh well, life marches on . . .

As far as the gist of this thread, I don't see why a simple page could have been put up that said Gone Gold Down for the foreseeable future.

One thing we know for sure is advertising revenue was paying for the site. How many advertisers would a notice like that scare away? How about all of them. Then Rich would have to pay out of pocket for a site he no longer wanted to maintain.

I've been toying with resurrecting the site (as gonegold.net or pcgonegold.com) and retooling it, with frequent game updates of games going Gold, frequent column updates (by both myself and other game industry people I know), a full forum, and (most importantly) more open and consistent communication with members, and some other stuff (to differentiate it from the gonegold.com site). Not sure if it would be worth doing or not, but i'd love to maybe try at some point.

I think that's a fine idea, and I wouldn't have a problem with somebody else creating a site with a name similar to GoneGold as long as they were respectful and not just cashing in on the name. With that said, however, a lot of people WOULD have a problem with it and it probably wouldn't be worth the flack just to use a variation on that existing name. In fact, the really devoted GoneGold folks that you'd MOST want to be cheering for your site would be exactly the ones that would be offended. You'd be far better off doing what you propose, but in an original way.

As far as the gist of this thread, I don't see why a simple page could have been put up that said Gone Gold Down for the foreseeable future.

One thing we know for sure is advertising revenue was paying for the site. How many advertisers would a notice like that scare away? How about all of them. Then Rich would have to pay out of pocket for a site he no longer wanted to maintain.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the logic of your argument. What is the point of advertisers being scared away? Usually the ISP would host that type of page for no cost at all. Instead of people continually clicking onto the site and using bandwidth they would get an answer and then be gone.

Sounds cool but would probably be better without the words "Gone" or "Gold" in it. Sad as it is, I think the legacy of GG is a dead Web site with a great forum. That's probably not a stigma you'd want to have for a brand new site.

Well, that would be my point...to erase that stigma and forge a new identity for it. GoneGold, the name itself, would give the site a nice head start in terms of marketing and search engine optimizing. The new identity: A vital, frequently updated site with tons of "Gold" info, columns (maybe 1-2 from forum regulars/veteran gamers who may be interested), a great forum and devoted to PC gaming. Almost an homage to GG, in a way. Rich would even be mentioned in the credits of the site. No attempt to "cash in" or rip off anyone. The previous volunteers and workers for the site would be more than glad to join in and contribute.

Yeah, I thought about the flack I might catch from some former GG regulars. If I did it, I would only hope that it would settle down as the site evolves and becomes a place they wouldn't mind coming to at some point. GG was a place I came to really enjoy years ago when I first discovered it, and it would be nice to "turn back the clock" so to speak and create that type of site again.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the logic of your argument. What is the point of advertisers being scared away? Usually the ISP would host that type of page for no cost at all

I wasn't aware that a notice like that could be put up for free, but still:

If I were an advertiser, I would be wary of returning to any medium (not just a website) that the owner turned on or off at will. If GE decided to yank NBC programming for a week, how long would it take to regain the viewership lost during the week it was down? And as an advertiser, how would I know GE won't do it again next month? And the month after that?

As far as revenue goes, putting up that notice would be just like starting GoneGold all over again, and I think we can safely assume Rich is not up for that.

If I were an advertiser, I would be wary of returning to any medium (not just a website) that the owner turned on or off at will. If GE decided to yank NBC programming for a week, how long would it take to regain the viewership lost during the week it was down? And as an advertiser, how would I know GE won't do it again next month? And the month after that?

As far as revenue goes, putting up that notice would be just like starting GoneGold all over again, and I think we can safely assume Rich is not up for that.

Yep, agreed...besides, most of his advertisers are more or less gone anyway with the site's sudden disappearing act. I sure as heck wouldn't advertise with them again. Instability makes advertisers nervous.

Weird...from what I knew of Rich (I had talked to him a little via e-mail), he wasn't the type to do something like that. He was devoted to the site, even when his health was really bad for awhile. So it makes me think...maybe his health took a real turn for the worse? Maybe that's the reason for the sudden and unexpected shutdown. In later years, the lack of communication was what made the site a little annoying for me. You never knew exactly what was going on.

Call me weird and all due respect, but if I ran a popular site/community like that, you can bet I would consider it an obligation to let the users know if I was going away or closing.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the logic of your argument. What is the point of advertisers being scared away? Usually the ISP would host that type of page for no cost at all

I wasn't aware that a notice like that could be put up for free, but still:

If I were an advertiser, I would be wary of returning to any medium (not just a website) that the owner turned on or off at will. If GE decided to yank NBC programming for a week, how long would it take to regain the viewership lost during the week it was down? And as an advertiser, how would I know GE won't do it again next month? And the month after that?

As far as revenue goes, putting up that notice would be just like starting GoneGold all over again, and I think we can safely assume Rich is not up for that.

Let me elaborate. There should be no fear of advertisers being scarred away because Rich closed the site down. Advertisers will simply not advertise there any longer. Actually, when Rich shut down the site, the fear of what the advertisors may or may not do is a moot point.

Let's carry the analogy a step further. If you were a bill collector and made a field call to a debtors home, what situation would you like to see? One where a forwarding address is posted on the home door. Or one where the home is vacant and you have no idea what's going on.

As far as the notice being the equivelent of being some kind of indication of the site starting all over again, I believe that conclusion is tenuous at best. And in my opinion, a finely worded notice may offer more closure than simply closing the doors.

Of course this is so unlike the Rich of the past, I am troubled by it all.

Whoa, what happened? I leave town for two weeks, come back, and gonegold is gone? Wow. Oh well, good thing I registered her a while ago, so technically im not a refugee. Actually, the old consolegold website got me into gonegold.

I've been toying with resurrecting the site (as gonegold.net or pcgonegold.com) and retooling it, with frequent game updates of games going Gold, frequent column updates (by both myself and other game industry people I know), a full forum, and (most importantly) more open and consistent communication with members, and some other stuff (to differentiate it from the gonegold.com site). Not sure if it would be worth doing or not, but i'd love to maybe try at some point.

I think that's a fine idea, and I wouldn't have a problem with somebody else creating a site with a name similar to GoneGold as long as they were respectful and not just cashing in on the name. With that said, however, a lot of people WOULD have a problem with it and it probably wouldn't be worth the flack just to use a variation on that existing name. In fact, the really devoted GoneGold folks that you'd MOST want to be cheering for your site would be exactly the ones that would be offended. You'd be far better off doing what you propose, but in an original way.

Sith

WTF is the logic behind being upset at a new Gone Gold?

Your home gets wrecked, you build a new one. If folks don't like it, they don't need to come over.

I mean it's a f'n forum people. It really no longer had anything to do with games going gold. When was the last time they updated game information on the site?

The site was in fact a forum community. It shouldn't ruffle feathers if there is a newly created meeting place.

I get that its his site and he can legally do what he wants, but just going dark like he did was inexcusable...

We prob. should have seen it coming.. Shutting the site down like that is consistent with his refusal to let people do things to make the site better.

I know there are lots of people that think that "its his site he can do whatever he wants with it" and that's certainly true in the legal sense. I also know there are lots of people that will always defend him no matter what the cost, but if you step back and look at this, it is a very selfish act.

I never said there WAS any logic to it. When people get passionate or emotional about things, they feel how they feel. I don't care one way or the other, but I know for certain that some former GG'ers would take offense - probably quite vocally.

Want to test my theory - post something negative (but factual) about Rich LaPorte and watch the reaction. Some will agree, some will disagree, and some will become inflamed at the mere invocation of Rich's name.

That's all I'm saying - just a friendly warning, not an analysis of the merits of the idea.

I know there are lots of people that think that "its his site he can do whatever he wants with it" and that's certainly true in the legal sense. I also know there are lots of people that will always defend him no matter what the cost, but if you step back and look at this, it is a very selfish act.

I'm not sure anyone would even debate you that it was a selfish act. I think what his supporters are saying is that they are willing to forgive the act, because he has a long history of doing good, and there must be some reason behind it. Maybe he's severely depressed, and for some reason GG's existance wasn't helping him, who knows.

Yeah, it was selfish, but sometimes you have to be that way for your own good.

I think the fact that he hasn't spoken to anyone in so long, and then shut GG down suddenly says a lot about his mental state right now. And having been in a pretty dark place myself in the past, I'm willing to forgive.